Change Your Image
rjd9999
Reviews
King Solomon's Mines (1985)
There are worse movies
but there aren't many. The acting by Stone is almost, but not quite, laughable. Her character in early fight scenes starts as a shrinking violent with lots of appropriate screaming and fear, but then goes on the attack punching and kicking with action hero-like skills. In each scene, she changes personality more rapidly than Loki. Is this her fault or the directors? It really doesn't matter as she delivers each line as if she were reading a script in early rehearsals.
Chamberlain is OK, but the script gives him almost nothing to work with. A competent actor should make better choices over which roles to take.
The script is nearly a carbon copy of an Indiana Jones film, and bears no relation to the novel or even earlier versions of the film (which, over time, has deviated further and further from the plot of the book). Attempts at humor are feeble and do little to make this film watchable.
Sadly, it is not so bad that it is funny. To use a baseball metaphor, it sits at the Mendoza line for films - not bad enough to mock and not good enough to watch.
Rather than watch this, re-watch the Last Crusade for the 1000th time. It will be a better use of your time.
Of Mice and Men (1981)
Horrible Adaptation
While this movie could well deserve a 1 rating, I know that there are worse films out there. That faint praise, however, is more of a comment on how bad "Plan 9 From Outer Space" actually was compared to this film.
My primary objections to this film aren't the wooden acting, though that would be sufficient to not recommend the film, but the script. Steinbeck wrote a novel that was designed to be staged. Each "act," it's hard to call them chapters, contains everything necessary to set the scene, place the actors on stage, feed them informative and insightful dialog, and interest the observer/reader. It was an admirable piece of writing that should, by design, be easily translated to stage or film.
Yet, in the first 40 minutes of this film, the director chose to add scenes, such as one with Aunt Clara, one where George tries to abandon Lennie, one between Curley and his wife, and the one where Lennie lifts the back of a wagon. None of these scenes are supported by the text of the book. When staged, they succeed only in destroying the meaning of Steinbeck's awesome novel. If abusing a piece of literature were a capital crime, Solow and Badiyi would be the first against the wall.
Now, the acting. At best, Blake is a mediocre actor. In this, which is arguably his worst work, he is wooden, condescending, and emotionally crippled. You are supposed to like George and sympathize with his ability to put up with the ever failing Lennie, but I found myself liking Curley almost as much.
Quaid, on the other hand, tries, but fails, to bring life to the character of Lennie. Had they actually used the words Steinbeck wrote, it is possible he may have been successful. It was a game effort, but it failed miserably, nonetheless.
Granted, this was a television adaptation and suffered from a lack of budget and time. All the more reason for the creators to not delve off into laughable visits with Aunt Clara or create other unnecessary, and unsupported, scenes. Steinbeck wrote a concise and accurate script which he designed to read like a play and, hence, brought to stage or screen. Somehow, those responsible for this train wreck failed to understand this, even though the ability to do this should be in their job description.
Watch any other version of this movie, if you get the chance. While I have issues with all of them, they are all significantly better films and are closer to the original text of the book.
Rick